Supreme Court of Tasmania - Annual Report 2004-2005€¦ · Master, Registrar and 50 administrative staff. THE STRUCTURE OF THE COURT Court systems throughout Australia are hierarchical

Supreme Court of Tasmania

A n n u a l R e p o rt

print continue exit

www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au

http://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au

~ The Chief Justice’s Annual Report ~

for

The Supreme Court of Tasmania2004 - 2005

This report is submitted pursuant to s194H of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932,

pursuant to which the Chief Justice is to provide a report to Parliament. This report is to include

details as to the administration of justice in the Court during the current year and any other

matters that the Chief Justice considers appropriate.

- ISSN 1449-146X -

P A G E 2

Supreme Court of Tasmaniaa n n u a l r e p o r t 2004/2005

< PREVIOUS PAGE print exit NEXT PAGE >



P A G E 3




THE YEAR AT A GLANCE

� NEW CHIEF JUSTICE APPOINTEDThe Honourable Peter George Underwood, AO is appointed as Supreme Court Chief Justice

� LAUNCH OF THE COURT’S IMPROVED WEBSITENew interactive website is launched with improved and updated information

� FEES AND CHARGES REVIEW COMPLETED AND IMPLEMENTED Supreme Court of Tasmania remains competitive nationally for court services

� IMPLEMENTATION OF A STATEWIDE IN-COURT DIGITAL RECORDING SYSTEMAudiovisual court proceedings now recorded digitally in all Supreme Courts in Tasmania

� SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA REMAINS ONE OF THE MOST COSTEFFECTIVE COURTS IN AUSTRALIA

Cost per finalisation remains low in comparison to national Supreme Courts

� A NEW JUDGE APPOINTED IN TASMANIAThe Honourable Shan Eve Tennent is appointed on 15th March 2005





THE YEAR AT A GLANCE

P A G E 4

Criminal Court

Appeals 25Originating matters 535

Finalised Appeals 24Finalised First Instance 525

Civil Court

Appeals 159Personal Injury 313Corporations Law 17Debt Recovery 235Winding up Apps. 4Other 621

Finalised Appeals 33Finalised First Instance 1744

Probate

Grants of Probate 1866Grants of L of A 186Reseal 16

ConferenceSettlements

Personal Injuries (MVA) 50Personal Injuries (IND) 41Contract 18TFM 9De Facto 30 Building 2Other 37

Conferences not settled 135





NEW CHIEF JUSTICE

The HonourablePeter George Underwood, AO

is appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on

2nd December 2004





THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA IN PROFILE

ABOUT THE COURT

The Supreme Court of Tasmania (theCourt), created by the Charter of JusticeAct 1823, is the oldest Supreme Court inAustralia and forms part of a multi-layeredcourt system, which exercises both federaland state jurisdictions. The Court is thesuperior court of the State and is equal instatus to, but independent of, theLegislature and the Executive.

The Court is constituted currently by sixJudges. The Court is supported by theMaster, Registrar and 50 administrativestaff.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE COURT

Court systems throughout Australia arehierarchical with most states adoptingthree levels of courts;

- Magistrates (or local) Courts- County or District Courts- Supreme Courts

In Tasmania, there are only two levels in theCourt hierarchy being the MagistratesCourts and the Supreme Court.

The Court is divided into three broad areasof operation namely criminal, civil andappeal matters.

Criminal matters are those in which anaccused person is charged with anindictable offence. Upon entry of a plea ofnot guilty, an indictable offence is tried by ajudge and jury of twelve persons.

In civil matters, the Court determinesdisputes involving sums in excess of$20,000. Such trials are usually conductedby a judge sitting alone, although provisiondoes exist for some cases to be tried by ajudge and a jury of seven persons.

Appeals from the decisions of a singlejudge, or a judge and jury, are heard by abench of three or more judges. This court iscalled the Court of Criminal Appeal whensitting in criminal matters and called theFull Court when sitting in civil matters.There is provision enabling an appeal to beheard by only two judges.

THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

The Court exercises both original andappellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction iswhen a matter comes before the Court fora decision for the first time and appellatejurisdiction is when the Court determinesappeals from single judges, from theMagistrates Court or from various tribunalswhere there exists a right to appeal to theSupreme Court.

P A G E 6






MEDIATION

Only a very small percentage of civil cases

require resolution by a hearing in the Court.

Most of these cases settle at mediation.

The Registrar is the principal mediator

assisted by other court officers and

selected legal practitioners. The Court has

a power to direct that a case be referred to

mediation before it will be listed for trial.

Court-annexed mediation is a very popular

and successful means of resolving civil

disputes. It provides expedition, saves

costs and produces a just result. Without it

the Court would not be able to cope with its

caseload.

THE REGISTRIES OF THE COURT

The Court operates civil, criminal, probate

and district registries.

CIVIL REGISTRY

The Civil Registry receives and processes

all documents lodged in the civil

jurisdiction of the court and is the first point

of reference for enquiries from the public

and the legal profession. This registry also

receives and processes appeals to the Full

Court and single judge appeals. It also has

responsibility for the management of the

Court’s records and the listing and case

management functions for the court’s civil

and appellate jurisdictions.

CRIMINAL REGISTRY

The Criminal Registry receives and

processes documents lodged by the

Director of Public Prosecutions which

initiate criminal proceedings, lists criminal

trials and other hearings, receives and

processes applications for leave to appeal

and prepares appeal documentation for

use by the Court of Criminal Appeal as well

as receiving and processing applications to

review decisions from the Magistrates

Court and State Tribunals.

PROBATE REGISTRY

The Probate Registry deals with

applications for grants of probate, letters

of administration and other related matters.

It is responsible for determining, on

application for a grant of representation,

what document or documents constitute

the last will of the deceased and/or who

is entitled to be the legal personal

representative of the deceased.

Most of these applications are decided

without a court hearing. If there is a

dispute, it is heard and determined by the

Court in the same way as all other civil

cases are heard and determined. When

these determinations have been made, a

grant is issued to the legal personal

representative of the deceased person.

DISTRICT REGISTRIES

The Court maintains registries in

Launceston and Burnie to deal with civil

and criminal matters.

P A G E 7






THE JUDGES AND THE MASTER

JUDGES

Judges of the Supreme Court are

appointed by the Governor on the advice of

the Executive Council (a council of State

Ministers including the Premier) from the

ranks of barristers and solicitors who have

at least 10 years standing in their

profession.

The bench of the Supreme Court currently

consists of the Chief Justice and five other

judges, known as "puisne judges". This is

an Anglo-French term meaning

subordinate and pronounced "puny".

MASTER

The Master of the Supreme Court is

appointed by the Governor in the same

manner as a judge. The Master assists the

judges in conducting the civil jurisdiction of

the Court. For instance, the Master deals

with interlocutory, that is procedural,

applications in civil matters before they

come on for trial.

Recently, this jurisdiction has been extended

to include hearing and determining many

cases that formerly could only be heard

by a judge. This legislative change has

assisted the capacity of the Court to

manage its case load.

The Supreme Court Act 1887, s2, provides

that the Court consists of a maximum of

seven judges. Six judges presently

constitute the Court. Those presently

holding office are:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

The Honourable

Peter George Underwood AO

THE JUDGES

The Honourable Ewan Charles Crawford

The Honourable Pierre William Slicer

The Honourable Peter Ethrington Evans

The Honourable Alan Michael Blow OAM

The Honourable Shan Eve Tennent

MASTER

Mr Stephen Holt

P A G E 8





Full Bench of the Supreme Court 2005

Back L-R: The Honourable Shan Eve Tennent, The Honourable Peter Ethrington Evans, The Honourable Ewan Charles Crawford, The Honourable Peter George Underwood AO, The Honourable Pierre William Slicer, The Honourable Alan Michael Blow OAM Front L-R: Mr Ian Ritchard, Mr Stephen Holt





THE JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW

OVERVIEW

An essential element for every free

democratic society is an independent

judiciary; one that has the support of the

community it serves, and one that is able to

uphold the rule of law and administer justice

fairly, efficiently and in accordance with the

law. Paradoxically, although freedom from

interference from other arms of government

is the foundation stone that underpins the

independence of the judicial arm, without

the support of the executive, there would be

no judiciary at all. As less developed

countries have found, without salaries,

paper, books, chairs, computers and

the like, there would be no judiciary at all.

So in this respect the judiciary is totally

dependent upon the executive government,

moreover, an executive government that

understands the importance of providing

the resources necessary to enable the

judiciary to function properly, and at the

same time not interfere in its work. In my

experience, although the Supreme Court

could always use more resources than are

provided, Tasmanian governments have

always understood these principles.

In return, the Court has a duty to use the

resources provided by the executive in an

efficient and cost effective manner and

accordingly, it is appropriate that the Court

accounts to the people of Tasmania through

the Parliament for its stewardship of those

resources - hence this annual report.

However, those reading this report need to

bear in mind that the true measure of the

work of the Court is qualitative. Has the

Court acted justly, impartially, without fear

or favour and in accordance with the law.

Although the Court is accountable to the

Parliament for its management of the

resources provided to it, it is only

answerable to the law for the discharge of

its constitutional obligations. As the Chief

Justice of Western Australia once said:

"Although Judges are the servants of

the public they are not public servants.

The duty of a judge is not to give effect

to the policy of the government of the

day, but to administer justice in

accordance with law, without fear or

favour and without regard to the

polices of the executive government."

Although I have been Chief Justice for only

six months of the year under review I have

been on the Bench for the past 20 years,

and can report that the year has been a

busy one for all of us. The pressure of work

always increases markedly when the Court

is faced with hearing a long case, as it was

for the first half of the current year. My

predecessor commenced to hear a civil

dispute in April 2004 that occupied him

exclusively until his retirement at the end of

that year. With a Court of only six judges

this reduced the judicial resources

available to deal with the ordinary work

load by 17 %.

P A G E 1 0






Although the primary focus is on the

judges, none of us would be able to

discharge the obligations of judicial office

without the assistance of the Registrar,

Mr Ian Ritchard and his staff. Each one of

us at the Supreme Court is dependent

upon the others. The administrative staff

constitutes a team dedicated to providing

excellence in the administration of justice.

I express my sincere thanks to each one of

them for a great job well done.

FAREWELL TO THE CHIEF

JUSTICE THE HONOURABLE

WILLIAM JOHN ELLIS COX, AS,

RFD, ED

The 1st of December 2004 marked the

retirement of the former Chief Justice,

the Honourable William John Ellis Cox, from

the Supreme Court in order to assume the

role of Governor of Tasmania. The former

Chief Justice held office as Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court since 4th September

1995, a period in excess of nine years. He

had been a member of the Court since 2nd

February 1982, a total of 23 years.

On behalf of all Tasmanians I thank him for

his distinguished and dedicated service

and contribution to the law. We all wish

him well.

On a personal note I thank him for all that

he has done during his term in office and

his friendship.

I wish the former Chief Justice well in his

new role.

A NEW JUDGE

On 15 March 2005 the Honourable Justice

Shan Tennent was sworn in as a judge of

the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Prior to

her appointment Justice Tennent served as

a magistrate in this State for nine years.

The judges of the Court welcome her to the

Bench and express the wish that she finds

the duties of her office rewarding.

P A G E 1 1





NEW judge appointed

The Honourable Shan Eve Tennent is appointed on 15th March 2005






AN ACTING JUDGE

As I was due to take long leave for the

months of June, July and August the

Attorney-General kindly provided the Court

with an acting judge to relieve the pressure

of work that would be created by my

absence. On 23 May 2005 Deputy Chief

Magistrate Michael Hill was sworn in as an

acting judge of this court for six months. The

Court expresses its appreciation to Acting

Justice Hill for agreeing to accept this

appointment and, thus, provide the Court

with valuable assistance.

THE COURT AND

THE COMMUNITY

The Court continues to strive for excellence

in the provision of judicial services to the

greater community and also works hard at

increasing the public’s awareness and

understanding of the justice system.

During the month of June 2005, the

improved Supreme Court website was

launched which was designed to provide

the Tasmanian community with a wide

range of information about the Court and

the judicial process. The improved website

provides up to date published sentences

and judgments and a selection of recent

speeches delivered by the Court’s judges.

The website is both informative and

interactive, with a section for the reader to

provide feedback and even book a tour of

the Court directly online. The Law List is

published daily.

The Court is also proud of its judges

participating in external activities that benefit

the wider community. These activities include

participating on the Board of Legal Education

and holding senior positions such as

Chairman of the Board for the United Nations

Human Rights Education Committee. Judges

also teach graduate trainees in the

University’s Professional Legal Training

Program and assist in an Adult Education

program called “In the Judges Chambers”,

which gives participants an insight into the

inner workings of the Court.

JUDICIAL EDUCATION

The judges are committed to continuing legal

education to maintain and enhance their skills

necessary for their judicial work. Justice

Tennent, along with all newly appointed

judges, has attended the National Judicial

Orientation program conducted by the

National Judicial College of Australia and the

Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.

In addition, judges have attended and

presented at a number of seminars and

conferences on subjects related to their

judicial work.

I would like to see the staff of the Court

being given the opportunity to take part in

continuing education particularly relating to

judicial administration.

P A G E 1 3





Judge

On the 23rd May 2005, Depty Chief MagistrateMichael Hill is sworn in as Acting Judge.






TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT

Over the course of the year there has been

substantial technological upgrading of all

courtrooms throughout the State. Desktop

computers are now installed at all

associate’s desks and all judges’ benches

have the facility to access the Justice

network via a laptop. This development

gives the judge immediate access to a

huge electronic library, transcripts and the

like, while sitting in Court.

Of particular note this year was the

replacement of the antiquated analogue

recording system that had dutifully

recorded court proceedings onto cassette

tapes for over twenty years. This system

was replaced with a state of the art digital

audio and visual recording system that has

greatly improved the quality of the court

recordings and has increased the

productivity of transcription services.

Technology has also improved services for

the hearing impaired through the Court’s

introduction of infrared hearing loops in all

courtrooms across the State. Also voice

re-enforcement from the witness box has

greatly assisted the public’s participation in

the Court process.

JURIES

The Juries Act 2003 will come into force on

the 1 January 2006. This will provide a

number of improved procedures to the jury

system. A growing number of jurors are

seeking to be exempted because the level

of remuneration offered to them would

cause economic hardship. If the jury is to

truly reflect the community, the remuneration

should be such as to enable jurors not

to be substantially out of pocket.

The judges have recommended that jurors’

remuneration be increased to a maximum

of the average wage of Tasmanians.

REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES

Following representation from the

Attorney-General and on the

recommendation of the Costs and Fees

Standing Committee, the Rule Committee

agreed to substantially increase the fees in

civil litigation, probate and sheriff’s fees to

reflect the average of fees charged in other

states. With the agreement of Government

the additional revenue collected will fund

improvement in court technology. The first

project to be undertaken is the Civil

Registry Management System.

P A G E 1 5






COURT SECURITY

Over three months from December 2004,

the Court significantly upgraded all aspects

of physical security throughout Supreme

Court sites State-wide. This upgrade

included the installation of internal and

external closed circuit television and the

upgrading of distress buttons. Motion

detectors were also employed at all sites

and a state-of-the-art digital access control

system was installed for all perimeter doors

and public area barriers.

In addition, the Courts worked closely with

the Prison Service to ensure all security

upgrades within the cells area were on

point.

SIGNIFICANT REMEDIAL WORK

The Court was able to address some

significant remedial building work through

departmental funding over the course of

the year. These works concentrated on the

completion of the building fire detection

system in the Hobart Supreme Court and

the replacement of the emergency lighting

in the Launceston Supreme Court. A

complete fire door upgrade also got

underway during the period.

Although the Court has been fortunate to

obtain funding to enable these projects to

be undertaken I am concerned that, as part

of the Court’s budgetary process, there are

insufficient funds in the Court’s budget to

properly maintain the fabric of these

important public buildings. The Strategic

Assets Management Plan, which was

endorsed by the judges, sets out a number

of defects inherent in the design in the

courts in Launceston, Burnie and Hobart.

These include disability access, juror

security, security generally and inefficient

design to meet the needs of the modern

court user. The lack of air conditioning in

the Launceston Supreme Court has caused

considerable difficulty, particularly in the

summer months. I would like to see a long

term plan developed to examine the

feasibility of the development of court

complexes to house all State (and possibly

Commonwealth) courts and tribunals and

to obtain the benefits of multi use facilities.

LOOKING FORWARD

There is always room for improvement.

As mentioned later in this report, I shall

give attention during the next reporting

period to improving the process from arrest

to disposition in the Court in the case of

indictable offences. The exercise is designed

not only to shorten the time frame but also

to reduce costs and to reduce the demands

on police time getting cases ready for trial.

In the next reporting period consideration

will be given to the allocation of judicial

resources to Burnie and Launceston for

civil work. The long-standing practice of

providing a judge for blocks of four

consecutive weeks to hear civil cases in

the two centres is no longer required.

P A G E 1 6






Thought will be given to how the demand

for court time to hear civil cases in

Launceston and Burnie can be met more

efficiently and at the same time utilise

judicial resources to ensure that criminal

matters are dealt with expeditiously.

In the longer term the Court must consider

whether the arrangements for Court

sittings need to be changed to better meet

the demand. Thanks to the success of the

mediation programme referred to earlier in

this report, and the growth of Tribunals

such as the Resource Management and

Planning Appeal Tribunal, the Court does

less and less trial work and more and more

appellate work. As a result there is less

time in court but more time out of court

writing judgments.

The current arrangement of court sitting

times goes back more than fifty years and

needs to be re-arranged to suit modern

conditions.

A major project that aims to implement a

significant improvement in how the Court

manages the Civil Court casework is

perhaps one of the most exciting key

initiatives for 2006. The Civil Registry

Management Computer System will

improve the efficiency of the civil justice

system by providing tools with which to

better case manage matters, simplify the

administration of cases and provide

transparency to the entire process.

A significant upgrade of video conferencing

facilities in the Criminal Courts is planned

for implementation in the coming period.

This will see the introduction of large

screens in the courtrooms in conjunction

with new video conferencing equipment

and will mean an end to shuffling trials back

and forth from the one courtroom that

currently is fitted with this technology.

P A G E 1 7





COURT ADMINISTRATION - PERFORMANCE

OVERVIEW

The work of the Supreme Court is divided

into two major jurisdictional areas - criminal

matters and civil matters. Unlike many other

Supreme Courts, the Court is not divided

into divisions. All judges hear matters, at first

instance and on appeal, in both jurisdictions.

In addition, the Court sits in three locations -

Hobart, Launceston and Burnie.

The workload of the Court is subject to

fluctuations that are beyond the ability of

the Court to control. The nature of the legal

process requires that any matter falling

within the jurisdiction of the Court may be

brought before it. As the jurisdiction of the

Court expands and contracts with statutory

changes, so does its workload.

THE COURTS PERFORMANCE

Objectives for court administration for the

reporting year were:

- To be open and accessible

- To process matters in an expeditious

and timely manner

- To provide due process and equal

protection before the law

- To be independent yet accountable

to Parliament for performance

A framework of performance indicators

adopted by the Court supports the above

objectives. The performance indicator

framework is summarised as follows:

Fees Paid By Applicants

An indicator of access that measures the

average fees paid per lodgement.

Backlog Indicator

A measure of timeliness that relates the

age of the Court’s pending caseload to

timeliness standards.

Attendance Indicator

A measure of effectiveness that records the

number of attendances by the parties or their

representatives, for each finalised matter.

Judicial Officers

The number of judicial officers is a measure

of resources and also indicates access to

the judicial system.

Clearance Rate

A measure of whether the Court is keeping

up with its workload.

Cost Per Finalisation

A measure of efficiency that shows the

average net recurrent expenditure per

finalisation.

P A G E 1 8






The ResultsEquity - Fees Paid By Applicants

This indicator of access shows the average

fees per lodgement. Court fees are only

part of the costs faced by applicants (with

legal fees being more significant). Court

filing fees relate to civil cases.

TABLE 4.1Average Civil Court Fees Collectedper Lodgement 2004-05 ($)

Supreme Court (excluding probate)

Supreme Court Probate

Commentary

The Court undertook a full review of its fees

and charges in 2003-04 as direct

comparisons with other states clearly

showed that Tasmania was not keeping

pace with national fee structures and

trends. A new fees and charges structure

was implemented in July 2004.

As a result of this review, fees and

charges across the board were increased

and this is reflected in the table adjacent.

It is interesting to note that in Tasmania

average fees per lodgement remain the

most competitive nationally."

P A G E 1 9

2004-05 365

2003-04 119

2002-03 119

2004-05 283

2003-04 108

2002-03 101






P A G E 2 0

Effectiveness –

timeliness and delay

There are two indicators of timeliness

and delay: backlog and attendance.

The backlog indicator measures the

Court’s pending caseload against time

standards. The national standards have

been set as follows:

- No more than 10 per cent of

lodgements pending completion are

to be more than 12 months old.

- No lodgements pending completion

are to be more than 24 months old.






Commentary

The Court is committed to reducing the

backlog in both the first instance and appeal

matters and has considered this a priority in

the reporting period. Timeliness can be

affected by delays caused by factors other

than those related to the Court’s direct

workload. More efficient use of judicial

resources within the period has seen a 9%

improvement in those pending first instance

cases greater than twelve months old.

The Court is also committed to reducing

the time taken to finalise a charge for an

indictable crime from the moment of arrest

until finalisation. Achievement of this

commitment will involve not only the Court,

but also Tasmania Police, the Director of

the Magistrates Courts. It will be a major

project for the next reporting period.

The Court is well within the national

standard for appeal matters and

approaching the national standard for first

instance matters. On a national basis, the

Court is performing significantly better than

other States, although it is important to

note that other states operate with different

court hierarchies and direct comparisons

are difficult to make.

TABLE 4.2Backlog Indicator Criminal

Jurisdiction, 2004-05

P A G E 2 1

2002-03

15Pending

caseload (no)

%

-

2003-04

9

%

-

2004-05

8

%

-

1Cases > 12mths 7 0 0 0 0

0Cases > 24mths 0 0 0 0 0

2002-03

263Pending

caseload (no)

%

-

2003-04

233

%

-

2004-05

235

%

-

39Cases > 12mths 15 50 21 28 12

9Cases > 24mths 3 2 1 3 1

Supreme Court First Instance

Supreme Court Appeal






Commentary

The percentage of matters pending greater

than 12 months and 24 months is

unacceptably high. This Court has only

recently introduced full case management

in all matters other than personal injury and

it will take some time for the statistics to

reflect these changes. The Court is

committed to ensuring that matters resolve

in a timely and cost effective manner. The

initiatives outlined in other parts of this

report should substantially improve the

timeliness of civil proceedings and the

introduction of the civil computer system

will enable these initiatives to be monitored

and evaluated.

TABLE 4.3Backlog Indicator

Civil Jurisdiction, 2004-05

P A G E 2 2

2002-03

2042Pending

caseload (no)

%

-

2003-04

2043

%

-

2004-05

1889

%

-

1601Cases > 12mths 78 990 48 915 48

960Cases > 24mths 47 548 25 523 28

2002-03

164Pending

caseload (no)

%

-

2003-04

182

%

-

2004-05

123

%

-

34Cases > 12mths 21 29 16 12 10

9Cases > 24mths 5 11 6 0 0

Supreme Court First Instance

Supreme Court Appeal






TABLE 4.4Attendance Indicator, 2004-05

Supreme Court average attendances per finalisation

P A G E 2 3

2002-03

5.8Criminal

Jurisdiction

2003-04

5.8

2004-05

6.2

Commentary

The Attendance Indicator for the Court is

considered elevated in comparison with

Supreme Courts on a national basis. This is

largely due to the current system employed

for remanding offenders to appear at the

following Court sitting period. Although

remanding an offender is technically

considered an appearance, it does cloud

the result with the net number of

appearances being significantly reduced

and on par with national trends.

Retention of the remand day procedure will

be reviewed as part of the enquiry aimed at

reducing the time taken from charge to final

disposition of indictable offences.






TABLE 4.5Judicial Officers, Full Time Equivalent, 2004-05

Supreme Court number of FTE judicial officers

P A G E 2 4

2002-03

7Criminal & Civil

Jurisdictions

2003-04

7

2004-05

6.8

Effectiveness - Judicial Officers

The Judicial Officers indicator representsresources or number of officers who canmake enforceable orders of the Court. It also indicates access to the judicialsystem.

Commentary

The number of full time judicial officers hasremained constant over the threepreceding periods. A slight reduction in2004-05 was due to a several month gap inreplacing the Honourable Peter GeorgeUnderwood, AO following his appointmentas Chief Justice.






TABLE 4.6Clearance Rate (finalisations/lodgements) All Matters, 2004-05

Supreme Court, % clearances excluding probate matters

P A G E 2 5

2002-03

115.2

123.4

121.4

CriminalJurisdiction

Civil Jurisdiction

Total Court

2003-04

94.8

124.9

116.8

2004-05

98.0

131.7

121.8

Efficiency – Clearance Rate

The Clearance Rate is a measure thatindicates whether the Court is keeping upwith its workload. The indicator denotesthe number of finalisations in the reportingperiod as a percentage of the number oflodgements for the same period. A result of100% means that the Court is keeping upwith its caseload.

Commentary

The adjacent table highlights an excellentperformance for the Court in efficiencyterms with a Civil jurisdiction clearance rateexceeding 100%, therefore reducing thepending caseload overall.

The Criminal Jurisdiction is approachingthe ability to deal completely with theinflow of cases in a given period and it isagain pleasing to note that nationally theCourt’s performance in this area exceedsthose of interstate courts.






TABLE 4.7Net Expenditure Per Finalisation, 2004-05 ($)

Supreme Court

P A G E 2 6

2002-03

5,392

998

CriminalJurisdiction

Civil Jurisdiction

2003-04

7,372

1,291

2004-05

8,580

1,244

Efficiency – Cost Per Finalisation

This indicator is a measure of efficiency.Cost is measured as net recurrentexpenditure excluding payroll tax. Netexpenditure refers to expenditure minusincome (where income is derived from theCourt’s fees and charges).

Commentary

Net expenditure for the Court has steadilyincreased for each of the three previousperiods due predominantly to increases tosalaries and wages and operating costs ingeneral from year to year.

It is anticipated that this general increasewill continue into future periods as salaries,wages and operating costs continue torise.





OPERATING ACCOUNT - EFFECTIVE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2005

RECEIPTS

Recurrent Appropriation 3,377,405 3,614,549

Registry Fees & Collections 1 194,290 492,100

Provision of Transcript 1 12,397 78,372

Probate Fees & Charges 1 224,694 585,485

Mediation Fees 1 0 74,325

Sheriff’s Fees 6,813 6,065

Court Reporting 38,869 44,690

Collections 6,660 2,185

Video Conferencing 17,992 15,413

Recoveries of Salary 0 400

TOTAL RECEIPTS 3,879,120 4,913,584

EXPENDITURE

Employee Expenses

Salaries & Wages etc 1,934,798 1,951,512

Fringe Benefits Tax 16,349 17,381

Payroll Tax 130,883 134,082

Superannuation 197,308 201,274

Worker Compensation Insurance 3,859 3,994

Training 0 6,168

Other Employee Related 0 0

TOTAL EMPLOYEE RELATED 2,283,197 2,314,411

P A G E 2 7

2004-05 ACTUAL2003-04 ACTUALNOTE 2004-05 ACTUAL2003-04 ACTUALNOTE






ADMINISTRATION& OTHER EXPENSES

Fuel, Light & Power 140,656 147,972

Advertising & Recruitment 610 2,075

Rental 9,252 9,737

Communications 78,426 81,816

Travel 60,401 55,485

Consultancies 17,276 50,946

Printing & Stationary 29,352 29,195

Rates 2 46,530 127,528

Other Administration 82,621 86,437

Repairs & Maintenance 3 169,441 271,980

Minor Equipment 20,913 22,696

Library Materials 78,288 83,648

Computers & IT 166,142 198,551

Expenses of Witnesses 74,376 69,095

Expenses of Jurors 273,329 272,570

Other Expenses 4,462 5,875

TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE & OTHER EXPENSES 1,252,075 1,515,606

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 3,535,272 3,830,017

OVERHEAD CONTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OVERHEAD CONTRIBUTION BY DOJIR 368,000 361,343

P A G E 2 8

2004-05 ACTUAL2003-04 ACTUALNOTE


http://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.auhttp://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au


< PREVIOUS PAGE print exit



RESERVED BY LAW PAYMENTS RECEIVED(Salaries of Judicial Officers)

Salaries & Other Entitlements of Judges 1,736,288 1,831,380

Salary & Other Entitlements of The Master 253,215 269,267

TOTAL 1,989,503 2,100,647

STATUTORY MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS RECEIVED

Statutory Maintenance 43,721 39,425

P A G E 2 9


2004-05 ACTUAL2003-04 ACTUALNOTENOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Note 1 Supreme Court fees increased

Note 2 Change of calculation by Councils for rates

Note 3 Includes portion of expense of digital recording and security upgrade

Documents

Supreme Court of Tasmania - Annual Report 2004-2005€¦ · Master, Registrar and 50 administrative staff. THE STRUCTURE OF THE COURT Court systems throughout Australia are hierarchical